Artificial embryos — not exactly coming to a lab near you, but basically creating an embryo from another cell without an egg or sperm…great for research, but the ethical issues haven’t been worked out;

Smart-design for urban settings — using sensing technology and integrating tech into high-end design has always been part of the “future” in various sci-fi movies, but Quayside in Toronto will make some of it a reality;

Dueling neural networks — computer AI’s are bad at “creating”, but new techniques teaching them to learn off each other is creating a pseudo creativity with amazing applications for modelling, virtual entertainment, design, etc.;

Babelfish earbuds — auto translation in an earbud is great in theory, but I’m not convinced it will move out of the tourist zone as rapidly as some claim, particularly as early designs by no less than Google have been pretty clunky;

Zero-carbon natural gas — obviously, it’s still a non-renewable fuel, but having a clean version with no GHG emissions would be amazing, even if “Net Power’s technology won’t solve all the problems with natural gas, particularly on the extraction side. But as long as we’re using natural gas, we might as well use it as cleanly as possible.”;

Perfect Online Privacy through zero-knowledge proof — the idea is that you can provide “proof” of something (age, financial balance) without actually providing access…not quite a simple “proxy”, more like a cryptographic tool that says “You want to check if that record over there shows the person is over 18? Let me ask it”, and rather than performing the check itself, the cryptography gets the yes/no without seeing the original data…kind of like PayPal on steroids, but that doesn’t solve all the privacy issues online, it just makes the anonymous transparency of blockchains a bit more practical;

Genetic Fortune-Telling — the ethical issues of using DNA to predict health issues or even IQ are ridiculously bad, and based on the discrepancies in DNA testing for geneology, it can make economics look like a pure science; and,

Quantum leaps — building quantum computers is one thing, figuring out what to do with one is another…but modelling of molecules for design seems like a great first use.

However, for me, the one “breakthrough” that I think will affect us the most is the one the magazine dubs “AI for Everybody”:

Artificial intelligence has so far been mainly the plaything of big tech companies like Amazon, Baidu, Google, and Microsoft, as well as some startups. For many other companies and parts of the economy, AI systems are too expensive and too difficult to implement fully.

Machine-learning tools based in the cloud are bringing AI to a far broader audience. So far, Amazon dominates cloud AI with its AWS subsidiary. Google is challenging that with TensorFlow, an open-source AI library that can be used to build other machine-learning software. Recently Google announced Cloud AutoML, a suite of pre-trained systems that could make AI simpler to use.

Microsoft, which has its own AI-powered cloud platform, Azure, is teaming up with Amazon to offer Gluon, an open-source deep-learning library. Gluon is supposed to make building neural nets—a key technology in AI that crudely mimics how the human brain learns—as easy as building a smartphone app.

…

Currently AI is used mostly in the tech industry, where it has created efficiencies and produced new products and services. But many other businesses and industries have struggled to take advantage of the advances in artificial intelligence. Sectors such as medicine, manufacturing, and energy could also be transformed if they were able to implement the technology more fully, with a huge boost to economic productivity.

Most companies, though, still don’t have enough people who know how to use cloud AI. So Amazon and Google are also setting up consultancy services. Once the cloud puts the technology within the reach of almost everyone, the real AI revolution can begin.

My only disagreement with the last one is the timing. They argue it’s available now, partly based on things like Siri and Alexa invading homes. Combined with the dueling neural networks, there are great things to be accomplished. I just don’t think they’re as close as they optimistically project they are already.

PLOT OR PREMISE

This is the annual observer’s guide published by the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada.

WHAT I LIKED

One of the most obvious challenges for an Observer’s Guide of this kind is balancing the needs of newbies and moderate amateurs with the needs of advanced astronomers, photographers, and outright astro-physicists. However, I’m on the newer end of the spectrum, and I found the typical wealth of information such as using the handbook for teaching purposes and resources (p 17); observable satellites (p 25); filters (p 64); deep-sky observing hints (p 85); the sky month by month; and overviews on planets, dwarf planets, satellites, the sun, and various star options before getting to the deep-sky lists (which could benefit from better presentation). However, I think my favorite section was on the Moon. The entire handbook is “made” just having the info from Bruce McCurdy on lunar observing starting on page 158 as it is perfect for me. Relative shifts per day (p 158), Canadian content (p 160), the Hadley Rille (p 161), and the lunar certificate (p 161) are all great elements for me to try to see in the coming year.

WHAT I DIDN’T LIKE

I was surprised to see a number of errors in included URLs. While it is hard to stay evergreen, these were links that had not changed from last year and when I went back to the RASC website, the links worked just fine. Somehow they got edited in publication and never tested. Even links to the actual RASC website were wrong. There are also some highly technical pages on magnification, telescope parameters, night myopia, and exit pupils, and while correct, they are presented so densely that re-reading them left me more confused than informed. Finally, there is a strong economic bias that creeps into the texts in a few places — on binoculars, the only ones they mention as being good cost around $1500, and when talking about using Schmidt-Cassegrain scopes (often bought as they are quite portable), recommends just putting it in your backyard observatory, assuming of course you have the money to have a house with a backyard with room and resources to build an observatory. In addition, there are numerous editing choices made throughout the text such as lists sorted by one variable instead of by one that might aid organization. I’ve already found myself copying lists from previous years online into spreadsheets so I can resort them into a more usable format.

THE BOTTOM LINE / TWEET

Solid guide but some editorial and tone issues throughout

MY RATING

Legend: 1/5 Finished 2/5 Not bad 3/5 Good 4/5 Enjoyable 5/5 Excellent

DISCLOSURE

I received no compensation, not even a free copy, in exchange for this review. I am not personal friends with the editor, nor do I follow him / her on social media. I am however a member of RASC.

PLOT OR PREMISE

Good overview from beginning to end

WHAT I LIKED

A bit dated at the point of reading (1999), with some of the “new features” old hat, and as well, some of the “old features” had changed. However, the approach is light, and easy to follow, from beginning to end, and what makes this such a great resource is the CD-ROM disk that comes with it, containing some great software and sample coding to save the tired typist.

WHAT I DIDN’T LIKE

n/a

THE BOTTOM LINE / TWEET

Good overview

MY RATING

Original: October 10, 1999

Legend: 1/5 Finished 2/5 Not bad 3/5 Good 4/5 Enjoyable 5/5 Excellent

DISCLOSURE

I received no compensation, not even a free copy, in exchange for this review. I am not personal friends with the author, nor do I follow him / her on social media.

PLOT OR PREMISE

Instead of going through all the bits and pieces (which it does very quickly), Pirouz instead has focused on some elements that spice up web pages.

WHAT I LIKED

A programmer wouldn’t necessarily want to use all of them, but a new designer will find some really great tips and tricks here. Definitely a fun read as you can say to yourself, “ah-hah, so THAT’s how they do that!”.

WHAT I DIDN’T LIKE

n/a

THE BOTTOM LINE / TWEET

Great resource

MY RATING

Original: October 10, 1999

Legend: 1/5 Finished 2/5 Not bad 3/5 Good 4/5 Enjoyable 5/5 Excellent

DISCLOSURE

I received no compensation, not even a free copy, in exchange for this review. I am not personal friends with the author, nor do I follow him / her on social media.

I confess I have a bit of a techie mentality. I paid for part of my university life through working tech support areas and software installation services at universities, as well as helping teach a few practical sessions with professionals upgrading their computer skills. And when I started working for government, a lot of what garnered early positive feedback was my computer skills. I’ve done programming too. But where I stop being a techie usually is when it moves from software to hardware. There I’m relatively lost. Yet when people talk about Artificial Intelligence, better use of data, and all those wonderful things that are more software-oriented, they omit the part that I think is really possible in the short-run. The physical hardware with some basic programming.

People are all excited in the industry about “smart cars”, but long before I get a smart car, can someone tell me why I don’t have a dumb robot yet?

I don’t mean those simple robots that are merely self-propelled vacuum cleaners nor the ones for kids that roll like BB-8 or respond to a couple of voice commands or are in the shape of a pet. I’m talking about a dumb, simple, repetitive-task performing robot.

There’s an article over at the Harvard Business Review blogs by Andrew Ng called What Artificial Intelligence Can and Can’t Do Right Now (link may expire) and I love it for the way it approaches what AI can do by comparing it to the way humans process things. Basically, the argument is that if our brain can figure out what to do in less than a second, then the number of variables are relatively small, there are discrete choices and outcomes, and thus you can automate the task to a machine. Basically machine and supervised learning to teach a machine how to do it.

What do I want in a dumb robot? Someone who can do things for me during the day that I don’t need to do myself. Let’s walk through a typical day and the things that I should be able to have already…

I start my day with my alarm clock beeping at me. No real need to automate that, the alarm clock does exactly what it should do, a tried and true technology. But what if I roll over, turn off the alarm, and accidentally fall back asleep. I don’t mean I hit snooze, I mean I turned off the alarm. Now there is no backup. No mental nudge to say stay awake. What if my dumb robot (DR), let’s call it Jeeves, what if Jeeves was programmed that unless I override his programming the night before had access to my calendar and saw that it was 8:00 and I have a work meeting at 9:00, but I was still in bed. Could Jeeves beep at me? Or even in a nice voice (maybe reminiscent of my mom calling me when I was a kid to get my butt out of bed) saying “Paul, are you up yet?”. Maybe more insistent if I don’t answer. The backup to my own false sense of infallibility.

But let’s say I get up on time and I’m heading for the shower. Do I want Jeeves to turn on the shower for me and have it pre-heated to the right temperature before I come in? Nothing particularly challenging about that. Movement to a preset location, turning a knob to a specific point, good to go. Not much of a time-saver, most people wouldn’t bother. But you could have Jeeves do it.

Now, showering, brushing your teeth, voiding, those are tasks you’re going to perform yourself. But if you had a slight disability, are there basic things Jeeves could do to hold an arm out to assist with transitions? Hand you a towel? Monitor you in case you fall and call someone if you do? Could Jeeves even assist with bathing for those who need it? That’s probably a bridge too far right now, but not an impassable chasm.

But as you finish up in the bathroom, could Jeeves make you breakfast? Your bowls, utensils, cereal, juice, glasses are all pretty much going to be in the same place every day, so automating the robot to fill a bowl with cereal and a glass with juice shouldn’t be that difficult. You just need some flexibility to identify to Jeeves what your bowls and glasses look like, the layout of your kitchen, etc. although scanning/mapping software would do that for it pretty easily. A more advanced version might even be able to crack open a couple of eggs, butter bread or toast, make you a fried egg sandwich so breakfast is ready whenever you are.

Once everything is over, presumably Jeeves could clean up and put dishes in the dishwasher, etc. Could maybe clean them, and put them back in exactly the same spot as the day before, but perhaps not.

When I go to work each morning, there are basically six things I take with me. My tablet, my work blackberry, my personal phone, usually a book that I’m reading, my notebook, and my work pass. There are some other things in my bag, etc., but those six are pretty standard. I might or might not wear a coat depending on the day, different shoes, mitts, hats, always my car keys, but those are contextual. And once in a while, I forget something. Like my work pass. Why? Because I stopped somewhere on the way home, put it in the pocket of my jacket, got home, hung up the jacket, and forgot to put the pass on the shelf by the front door where I’ll see it. No biggie, but why am I using mental energy to remember to put it specifically in the same spot or remembering the next day? What if each of those six items had a small RFID tag on it that Jeeves would monitor. And if they weren’t all in my bag as I go to head out in the morning, Jeeves would say, “Excuse me, Paul, I don’t believe you have your work pass with you.” My first reaction will be, “What? No, of course I do, it’s right here in my … umm, why isn’t my pass in my bag? Oh right, it’s over here. Thanks Jeeves/memory jogger.” Is that a big deal? Of course not, but I bet I would program it to scan for the RFID’s when I’m leaving for the days when my brain is focused on the seven things my son, wife and I are talking about as we scramble to get out the door. Heck, sometimes it’s as simple as something got placed on top of my pass and I can’t physically see it on my shelf, and so I head out thinking I have everything.

Here’s where some of us will diverge. Lots of people would love to take the robot to work. That’s a bridge too far for me. If work wants to automate tasks, great, I shouldn’t bring my own “robot” to work to help me do my job. If so, why not just hire the robot?

But while I’m at work, could Jeeves vacuum the house? Clean a toilet? Wash pre-sorted laundry? Hang it on a line to dry or throw in the dryer and check if it is dry when done? Cut the grass? Shovel snow…oh, that would be sweet.

Could Jeeves be programmed with a more sophisticated kitchen module that would allow it to chop vegetables? Basically act as a sous-chef? Maybe even, with remote activation, throw a pizza in or a pre-assembled casserole so it’s ready when we all get home? I hesitate to go so far as having a full cookbook with multiple ingredients, but that is only an RFID tag on a standard sized container away from doable. Could he open the door and receive a package from UPS or FedEx? Could he collect the mail from a central box?

After supper, can it also double as a stand-in for a playmate for someone who is single or whose friends are busy that night? Get your mind out of the gutter. I mean rather than playing a board game or card game against a computer screen, could it roll dice, charge you rent in Monopoly, learn to throw and catch a frisbee? Or a baseball? Could it be programmed with multiple pitching styles to act like an automated pitcher that adjusts to your level and technique so you don’t have to hit balls by yourself and chase them? Could it act as pitcher with five little scouts running around it that chase balls and bring them back? Could it play basic tennis? Those are more about the design of the robot’s arms/movements than about technique for hitting or throwing a ball, so yes, they all could be done.

As I’m getting ready for bed, Jeeves could turn off all the lights downstairs (heck, an app can do that now). Jeeves could also monitor the location and charging status of my e-devices, and if they are not on the charger, go and get them and put them on charge. Or double check my to do list verbally with me to see if there is anything to adjust, delete, add. A personal secretary app, not unlike some of the functions Siri does now. But more interactive, following me around while I do other things.

And all of those things are doable. A dumb robot, personal assistant, digital butler, e-handmaiden, non-sentient slave. An article I read some time ago talked about the issue of android rights, similar basically to the idea that was raised in the first season of Star Trek: The Next Generation. Is an high-AI android property like a toaster? Or as the AI evolves, does it meet any criteria for self-awareness or even sentience? Except it missed the point.

Developers are looking for smart androids. People are looking for dumb robots.

If you had a Jeeves, what would you want it to do that you hate doing yourself?

PLOT OR PREMISE

Having met the author when I was a student at the University of Victoria when he was the Director of Graduate Admissions, I had a lot of confidence in his ability to present a no- nonsense approach to the idea of Distance Education. And for the most part, he delivered. [Note: This review is of the 1999 edition, vastly out of date now 20 years later).

WHAT I LIKED

The book does a pretty good job of giving an overview of those universities where it is possible to do the majority of the degree through distance education (correspondence, audio tapes, video tapes, fax, e-mail, internet lists, etc). And there are some sections for the uninitiated to figure out if distance education is for them. Some notable highlights, in my opinion, include:

Athabasca University: its primary method is distance ed;

California State University (Dominguez Hills): it has an interesting MA in Humanities (Art, History, Lit, Music, & Philosophy are the core courses);

City University: some campus centres around the world;

Heriod-Watt University (Edinburgh Business School): one of the UK systems with solid academic credentials but only for the truly independent learner;

Open University (Open Learning Agency): a strong presence in British Columbia;

Queen’s University: Only three BAs available by this method, but strong MBA program offered through regional centres throughout Canada;

Regents College (University of the State of New York): perhaps one of the better “”credit for life”” univs.;

University of London: Similar to HWU in Edinburgh, this offers a great deal (financially and academically) but is for the serious learner only who can work alone;

University of North Dakota: Offering an MSc in Space Studies, which alone is enough to be worth noting;

University of South Africa: Has a huge selection of courses available, perhaps more than any other univ in the book, and has reasonably solid international credentials;

University of Waterloo: as always, a solid choice regardless of the medium; and,

Vermont College of Norwich University: has an interesting mentoring program tailored to adult learners, but the residency requirement might be difficult;

WHAT I DIDN’T LIKE

The majority of the book is all-too-brief overviews of each university. He covers them all — but the most useful tool is missing from the book. There are appendices that list, for example, the universities offering each degree. However, what is missing is a simple table that would help the reader narrow down the search. The table would list:

degree available, perhaps broken by section?;

estimated cost of the degree? (the overviews list the cost of a unit/credit, but then fails to tell you how many units/credits it takes for a degree);

if there is a notation on the transcript that the degree was obtained through distance education?;

if there is a residency requirement? (many people would eliminate a huge number of places solely on that basis alone); and,

if they give credit for life experiences? (this would aid those who would select/deselect on that basis from both sides of the argument)

The overviews give you a lot of info, but a nice index would improve the process.

THE BOTTOM LINE / TWEET

No-nonsense approach to distance education.

MY RATING

Original: June 8, 1999

Legend: 1/5 Finished 2/5 Not bad 3/5 Good 4/5 Enjoyable 5/5 Excellent

DISCLOSURE

I received no compensation, not even a free copy, in exchange for this review. I am not personal friends with the author, but I did know him as Director of Graduate Admissions at the university where I was at a student..